Africa is not going to be saved on its own.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GT Snowracer:
Someone has to actaully do something. Controlling African Regimes have had more than enough opportunity to try and they couldn't care less. As do most of world leaders.

Africa is not going to be saved on its own.

SOME help from non-muslims is better than NO help at all.
GT

---

Africa is a big place with a lot of diversity. Great leadership is knowing what type of response to give in a particular situation. There are a lack of great leaders in the western world. the USA and Britain have lost credibility.

Unfortunately Bush and his lads have so tainted intervention by the Iraq debacle that the need for overwhelming force, when needed, can longer be separated from the stains of a failed U.S. foreign policy. The Sudan is not Iraq just as Rwanda was not Iraq. Kosovo was not Iraq. Bosnia was not Iraq.

Leaders everywhere are letting them down, it none sense for them to bicker about "who should" and "who shouldn't" do what to help......

The need is clear, deployment needs attention........ debate and "what ifs" are inappropriate and secondary to the lives of those people in crisis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GT Snowracer:
The need is clear, deployment needs attention........ debate and "what ifs" are inappropriate and secondary to the lives of those people in crisis.

---

Raising awareness, gathering aid, pressuring political regimes, applying relief..... how are these things getting in the way of your ideology?

quote:

---

Originally posted by GT Snowracer:
Or are you just interested in posting "that won't work" on most issues for the sake of being contrary.

---

I'm kinda surprized that supporting aid to Darfur gets this kind of reaction from "Progressive" Babblers.

You're right.... better to do nothing and cut up anyone who tries..... that will get er fixed real good......

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sanityatlast:
Unfortunately Bush and his lads have so tainted intervention by the Iraq debacle that the need for overwhelming force, when needed, can longer be separated from the stains of a failed U.S. foreign policy. The Sudan is not Iraq just as Rwanda was not Iraq. Kosovo was not Iraq. Bosnia was not Iraq.

War has consequences and an unnecessary war as in Iraq has had terrible consequences. It's unfortunate for the people of Darfur are, in part, victims of those consequences.

---

Realistically,the prudent option is to wait until the Arabs have achieved their objective and the send in a token western force with Arab connivance in order to project an image of western concern.

This will not help the oppressed peoples of Darfur but the much more important consideration of maintaining a pretense of concern can be met.

sarcasm off/

If any place on earth cries out for intervention,it is Darfur.NGOs there have cut back food aid to 1000 calories per day because only one third of western countries donations have been received.

The pro-Arab government and the great philanthropist,Osama bin Laden have threatened consequences dire if western countries come to the aid of these desperate non-muslims.

The African Union is incapable of maintaining the peace and without western intervention the people of Darfur are lost.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
Western militaries have the ability to accomplish this mission but not the political will to attempt it. No one cares.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:
The engine of conflict in Darfur is the pressure caused by the southward expansion of the Sahara caused by global warming (of course) as well as IMF motivated cash cropping. The entire Sahel is on the move, and this is causing conflict across the region. Darfur is but one example, albeit the one that's getting press.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

What do you think is among the better proposed solutions to this, both short- and long-term?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GT Snowracer:
You're right.... better to do nothing and cut up anyone who tries..... that will get er fixed real good......

Why is this a debate? Are people that cynical?

---

I wasn't aware that anyone was trying anything. My point was that poorly-thought out attempts at "helping" in many troubled regions in the world has led to making the situation worse, not better. If you need examples, I'll provide them, but I don't think you do.

I don't have answers, and I don't know what the way forward is.

If you can point to a well-thought out plan to fix this situation, please, point me to it.

1. Cut off all oil exports from Sudan until the Sudanese government stops supporting the bad guys. Much as I'd like to see this happen, we all know that the flow of oil trumps all other considerations for most world leaders. Still, it would be a very effective tool - more so than an invasion or intervention. At the same time, all weapons imports should be cut off, absolutely, until the situation is resolved.

2. UN intervention. Not US (not that they would or could anyway). UN troops on the ground providing security and aid. Preferably troops from African and Muslim countries, if possible. That being said, the rules of engagement would need to be very clear, the plan and goals very clear, and the objectives should not be allowed to expand over time. There should be enough troops, spport workers and money to get the job done (not a half arsed token mission).

3. Expand aid throughout the region - the localized bad shit in Darfur is only a part of the problem, and putting all of our effort there will make us feel good, but not really solve much in the long term.

Long-term:

1. Actually deal with global warming. No really, I'm serious. This is just the beginning.

2. Actually deal with global poverty. We can, we have the money, we just don't because we in the 'have' world place a higher priority on other things. History will not smile on us.

3. Implement a global trade regime that absolutely and completely forbids trade with repressive regimes. We can't invade everyone, and it's impossible to impose democracy by military force, but we can make repression the least appealing option for world leaders. Develop economic incentives for the sustained implementation of democratic processes.

By democratic processes I mean a few basics. 1 adult one vote. Habeus Corpus, right to vote, equality of opportunity and rights. How countries structure their political systems is up to them, but if they implement basic human rights and democratic principles, they get economic bonuses and trade benefits.

If governments are not democratic, there isn't much we can do about it - we don't now, we won't in the future. We can bar all trade with repressive regimes, especially the trade of weapons. 'Constructive engagement' is a sham, and it needs to stop.

[ 01 May 2006: Message edited by: arborman ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GT Snowracer:

S1mon.... interesting point man.
GT

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
Long-term:

3. Implement a global trade regime that absolutely and completely forbids trade with repressive regimes. We can't invade everyone, and it's impossible to impose democracy by military force, but we can make repression the least appealing option for world leaders. Develop economic incentives for the sustained implementation of democratic processes.

---

That would be ideal. The practical problem is that the world can never get anywhere near a consensus as to what governments constitute “repressive regimes”. Libya as the chair of the UN Human Rights Commission is an example of a UN without any basic standards. Hell, even “respectable” countries like Russia, China, the USA, Canada, France, Germany, etc., etc. can’t even agree when a country’s behavior is wrong. Then, add all of the developing countries to the mix and you’ll never get a consensus.

Remember Omdurman anyone ? In 1898, the British intervened to save the Soudan from its own people and thanks to the Maxim gun, slaughtered thousands. The Soudanese haven't forgotten.

None of the permanent members of the UN Security Council is from Africa. China seems to be their best friend there perhaps because they have known Western imperialism, like the wars of the Imperial British opium pushers who stole Hong Kong

Its racist to assume the West has the burden/right to intervene militarily wherever we decide. The "new-caught sullen peoples, half devil and half-child" will generally work out their own affairs, as we do, and military intervention usually makes things worse.

Let the Africans or more specifically, the Sudanese, solve their own problems. Of course many of their problems are caused by the West: Clinton's bombing of their pharmaceutical factory, global warming, colonial exploitation, unfair trade, the IMF, etc. So lets get off their backs and offer a friendly equal-to-equal helping hand.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

It’s all very discouraging.

---

Sure it is. But we know what a democracy is when we see it. So do the other democracies. So we create a trade pact that applies only to those who fit. Membership is contingent on not abandoning democracy. Benefits are obvious.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rikardo:

Is there something specifically Christian about this "do-something" obsession? In the 19th century we had to "do-something" because of all those non-Christians who didn't know Christ.

---

I unestandwhere you're coming from but there are real children being killed and real women being raped. If it's an 'obsesion' to do something then it's a positive obsession.

I agree, however, with this need of the West (especially the Brits) to go sticking our noses into all the crevices of the world. A Christian White Man's burden that can't b shed even though no longer under the guise of the original ideology.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sanityatlast:

I understand where you're coming from but there are real children being killed and real women being raped. If it's an 'obsession' to do something then it's a positive obsession.

I agree, however, with this relentless pattern of the West (especially the Brits) to go sticking our noses into all the crevices of the world. A Christian White Man's burden that can't be shed even though no longer under the guise of the original ideology.

The issue with intervention is that our first responsibility is to our Canadian troops. Our soldiers don't need to be left out in the Sudan floundering around because Canadians want to help but didn't provide the specifics how that soldier is suppose to make a difference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rikardo:
Its racist to assume the West has the burden/right to intervene militarily wherever we decide.

(snip)

Let the Africans or more specifically, the Sudanese, solve their own problems.

---

Let me ask you this: If Western intervention could save, say, 100,000 lives, you'd still vote for non-intervention?

Do you take the same position viz. the Palestinians and the Israelis (i.e., let them solve their own problems)?

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
The EU has done fairly well at articulating what prospective countries have to do to be considered for entry. We could do the same on a larger scale.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FabFabian:
FYI, Arabs come in all shades of the rainbow.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me ask you this: If Western intervention could save, say, 100,000

lives, you'd still vote for non-intervention?

Do you take the same position viz. the Palestinians and the Israelis

(i.e., let them solve their own problems)?

Are you, even in retrospect, of the same opinion regarding Rwanda

-Sven

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not opposed to Western humanitarian intervention, like, say, eliminating malaria which still kills over a million people a year in poor countries even though the remedy has been known for over 300 years. Or turberculosis which kills as many. Two million is twenty time the 100,000 you write of saving. I can't think of a place where military intervention would save 100,000 lives. It not that simple. 100 thousand victims was a figure they used to justify the "humanitarian" bombing of Yugoslavia which caused and is still causing thousands of deaths( DU bombs, environmental destruction) and has left Kosovo a gangster state.

Many Westerners see the world as a chaos where evil is about to triumph, if we don't "do something". Do our fears go back to our neolithic fear of the night, and the winter, and the Devil? Where is Confucius and his harmonious views?

Often, as in Rwanda, humanitarian crises are largely a result of Western intervention.

Boutros Ghali said (1998) that the genocide was 100% the responsibilty of the USA. US/UK gave military support of the RPF (Tutsi) brutal invasion of Rwandi from Uganda in 1990. Kagami was trained in the USA.

As the Tutsi troops approached Kigali, slaughtering the Hutus, the country's president is assassinated in a plane crash. No excuse for a genocide, you say, but who am I to judge such a complex situation. Louise Arbour's kangaroo court judges only Hutus.

"Actually, this is good stuff. And, kudos to George for saying it"

Here's what Charley Reese has to say about those who want to send young men to get killed in other people's wars (and who don't have the courage to go themselves)

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
Short-term:

1. Cut off all oil exports from Sudan until the Sudanese government stops supporting the bad guys. Much as I'd like to see this happen, we all know that the flow of oil trumps all other considerations for most world leaders. Still, it would be a very effective tool - more so than an invasion or intervention. At the same time, all weapons imports should be cut off, absolutely, until the situation is resolved.

2. UN intervention. Not US (not that they would or could anyway). UN troops on the ground providing security and aid. Preferably troops from African and Muslim countries, if possible. That being said, the rules of engagement would need to be very clear, the plan and goals very clear, and the objectives should not be allowed to expand over time. There should be enough troops, spport workers and money to get the job done (not a half arsed token mission).

3. Expand aid throughout the region - the localized bad shit in Darfur is only a part of the problem, and putting all of our effort there will make us feel good, but not really solve much in the long term.

Long-term:

1. Actually deal with global warming. No really, I'm serious. This is just the beginning.

2. Actually deal with global poverty. We can, we have the money, we just don't because we in the 'have' world place a higher priority on other things. History will not smile on us.

3. Implement a global trade regime that absolutely and completely forbids trade with repressive regimes. We can't invade everyone, and it's impossible to impose democracy by military force, but we can make repression the least appealing option for world leaders. Develop economic incentives for the sustained implementation of democratic processes.

By democratic processes I mean a few basics. 1 adult one vote. Habeus Corpus, right to vote, equality of opportunity and rights. How countries structure their political systems is up to them, but if they implement basic human rights and democratic principles, they get economic bonuses and trade benefits.

If governments are not democratic, there isn't much we can do about it - we don't now, we won't in the future. We can bar all trade with repressive regimes, especially the trade of weapons. 'Constructive engagement' is a sham, and it needs to stop.

[ 01 May 2006: Message edited by: arborman ]

---

Okay, for one. THE UN is aware of the situation. They've been discussing it for two years, while genocide rages on. They've finally decided that it doesn't fit the definition of genocide. There are undemocratic countries on the security council that do not want to vote for intervention as they love Sudan's oil...like China.

I completely agree that we should not trade with undemocratic countries. I cannot imagine anyone proposing to stop trade with somewhere like China though, can you? Our clothes, can openers, toys, etc., etc. are all made there, not here. Our leaders have outsourced so much of our production to undemocratic countries.

I think it is much more feasible to require only democratic countries who respect their citizens' human rights a seat on UN security or human rights councils.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rikardo:
Here's what Charley Reese has to say...

---

It's just like Kosovo all over again - remember how everyone was telling us that NATO had to intervene to prevent genocide? And remember how the real killing and displacement of refugees didn't begin in earnest until after NATO started attacking?

The crisis in Sudan is in part the result of excessive foreign intervention and meddling. More foreign intervention and meddling is not going to help anyone except the USA, who would love to get their hands on Sudan's oil and open up the country to their neoliberal globalizing agenda.

quote:

---

"The people in Sudan want to resolve the conflict. The biggest obstacle is US government policy. The US is committed to overthrowing the government in Khartoum. Any sort of peace effort is aborted, basically by policies of the United States...Instead of working for peace in Sudan, the US government has basically promoted a continuation of the war." - Jimmy Carter, December 1999

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
"The people in Sudan want to resolve the conflict. The biggest obstacle is US government policy. The US is committed to overthrowing the government in Khartoum. Any sort of peace effort is aborted, basically by policies of the United States...Instead of working for peace in Sudan, the US government has basically promoted a continuation of the war." - Jimmy Carter, December 1999

---